"Positive Atheism"

[chestercopperpot]

Whatever you decide, it's not going to make much difference to me, so do what you will, but I am wondering why a forum has the name "Positive Atheism (& Secular Activism)." I just don't like how that sounds. It sounds as if there is a "negative" atheism, or that atheism is not positive. I realize that we would like to do away with all the negative connotations given mostly by Christians to the word "atheism," but this makes it seem like there is something wrong, or not positive enough about plain old atheism. I feel that we have the more reasonable position, and the more we educate people, the better our position will seem, especially given the amount of scientists and generally well-educated people that are atheists or at least agnostic (I know, a generalization). I just don't feel like we need to insert a word for PR purposes. What does everyone else think?

Mike

[Toto]

"Positive Atheism (http://www.positiveatheism.org/india/gora21.htm)" was the title of a book by an Indian activist named Gora (online at the www.positiveatheism.org site). He thought of Positive Atheism as a complete philosophy of life; if you took a non-theistic, rationalist view of life, it has implications for all of your conduct.

Though "atheism" looks negative in form, it is positive in content. Not an uncommon practice of etymology expresses an affirmation by the negative of its contrary. "Independence", "atom" and "umpire" are formed in that manner. Every language contains examples of the practice. "Atheism" is one of that type. In positive terms "atheism" means man's mastery over his world.

I think that book could stand to be read more widely.

So don't diss Positive Atheism.

But I think that one thing that turns people off atheism is atheists spending too much time obsessing over what to call themselves.

[chestercopperpot]

I would think that the reason that atheists "obsess" over what to call themselves is that atheists, or non-religious people encompass a wide variety of views and beliefs. And I don't think that "obsessing" over a name would turn off anybody to atheism, as figuring out our "actual" name has nothing to do with our beliefs, and we don't rely on a "catchy" name to spread our beliefs.

I still say that adding "positive" to atheism just seems like a cheap PR stunt that everyone sees right through, similar to the "Brights."

But once again, not a big deal to me, just wondering what everyone else thinks.

[Toto]

It's not a PR stunt. Positive Atheism in its original meaning is a well thought out philosophy.

Atheism by itself only means without a belief in god(s). There seem to be people who do not believe in one or more gods, but who have not taken that lack of belief to its logical conclusions, and have not derived any philosophical benefit from not believing in god, or people who think that since there is no god, anything is permitted.

Maybe it should be called Adult Atheism.

[SEF]

I agree that there's more than one way to be an atheist and that it makes a difference.

Any animals, including humans, who have never made up the idea of a god, considered it or come across it are atheists by definition. However, that lack of belief through never having thought about something is a relatively negative one - "ignorant atheism" perhaps.

It seems entirely reasonable that all those who have considered the complete lack of evidence, rationale and even explanatory value of gods and as a result have concluded that they don't believe there are any gods are a different sort of atheist. If they leave it at that, then they are possibly in indolent, self-indulgent or even negative atheism. These are probably the only types of atheism fundamentalists are capable of imagining.

Then there is the next stage of considering the consequences; of being able to examine everything critically; of taking responsibility for their own thoughts, actions and lives; of realising that it is necessary to get things as right as possible the first time round because there is no second chance; of making the tough decisions yourself because there's no single correct answer; of fixing your own mistakes and dealing with other people's because there's no big bad sky fairy who's going to forgive you later but punish other people. That would be positive atheism to me.

[Gawdawful]

To many theists, the only exposure they have to atheism is a negative one, one in which the stereotypical loud and angry atheist is protesting or suing to change something the theist holds dear, such as God in the Pledge or prayer in school, et al. It is an image problem that only can be changed by presenting a different view of the "typical" atheist, many of whom live right in amongst the theists without making their presence known.

A good PR campaign can work wonders, even if it takes a couple decades. The best example for this is the commercials with a positive message that the Mormon church has put out for some 25 years. In that time I've seen the Mormon church move from being considered some whacko non-Christian cult to being more or less accepted or at least ignored by mainstream theists. I think their campaign has worked. Ours really isn't. Reality and science are creating far more atheists than the public image atheists present.

Atheists are neither as organized nor are as wealthy as a group as the Mormon church, so PR of exactly that sort and on that level is probably not possible, but what is possible is for each atheist to live a good life, treat people with respect, be charitable, loving, and tolerant, and at the same time, let them know that you are a non-believer, so that people will begin to see atheists as human and not demon-possessed minions of Satan and anti-religionist (different than anti-religion).

Is what I have described Positive Atheism? I don't know, I haven't read the book or the website yet, but I think it is a better image than trying to outshout the religious majority. I'm absolutely not saying that atheists shouldn't file lawsuits to stop unconstitutional religious things from occuring or to protest things that are wrong, but there has to be a way for more atheists to come out of the closet than to associate strictly with these causes, causes which feed the stereotype.

Now, I'll go look at the Positive Atheism section, website, etc. and see if I'm on the right track.


Warren the Okie

[crazyfingers]

I think that is topic would actually do much more good in the PA&SA forum. Moving it there now.

[Writer@Large]

I just don't like how that sounds. It sounds as if there is a "negative" atheism, or that atheism is not positive. Toto gave a good answer to this, but as the person who pushed for the new forum, I'll chime in.

I pushed for the Positive Atheism forum because practically all the other forums about atheism weren't about atheism, but about the athest/theist opposition. That was becoming, to me, a *very* negative thing. What did atheism mean, apart from opposing theism?

Technically, atheism *is* a negative assertion. If there were no theists, no god concept, then atheism would be nonexistant. The word would have no meaning. It does not make a positive statement about the world, but instead defines itself by its opposition to the theist perspective, which makes a positive assertion about the existence of gods.

What does being an atheist mean, apart from opposing another's worldview? That was the impetus for the PA&SA forum. "Positive Atheism" doesn't mean positive as in upbeat and happy, nor does it imply that regular atheism is a bad thing. "Positive" in this case was meant to convey proactive, progressive, forward-looking atheism. In other words, once we define ourselves in opposition to another idea, what can we say about ourselves?

--W@L

[chestercopperpot]

Toto gave a good answer to this, but as the person who pushed for the new forum, I'll chime in.

I pushed for the Positive Atheism forum because practically all the other forums about atheism weren't about atheism, but about the athest/theist opposition. That was becoming, to me, a *very* negative thing. What did atheism mean, apart from opposing theism?

Technically, atheism *is* a negative assertion. If there were no theists, no god concept, then atheism would be nonexistant. The word would have no meaning. It does not make a positive statement about the world, but instead defines itself by its opposition to the theist perspective, which makes a positive assertion about the existence of gods.

What does being an atheist mean, apart from opposing another's worldview? That was the impetus for the PA&SA forum. "Positive Atheism" doesn't mean positive as in upbeat and happy, nor does it imply that regular atheism is a bad thing. "Positive" in this case was meant to convey proactive, progressive, forward-looking atheism. In other words, once we define ourselves in opposition to another idea, what can we say about ourselves?

--W@L

Well, technically, Christianity (and most other religions) is also a negative assertion that all other gods do not exist. This kinda reminds me of the "Christianity, yes!" campaign from the movie Dogma. Why do we need the superficial marketing campaign? We are not the ones that rely on evengelists and indoctrination, as we rely on education.

Now, what is the difference between "positive" atheism and how I identify myself as an atheist? Am I not "forward-looking"?

We should be above inserting PR-friendly words to convey our position. Liberals seem to have a negative image in the media lately. Should I redefine my political philosophy as "Positive Liberalism"?

I think just "Secular Activism" would be fine for a forum name.

[Demosthenes]

Well, technically, Christianity (and most other religions) is also a negative assertion that all other gods do not exist. This kinda reminds me of the "Christianity, yes!" campaign from the movie Dogma. Why do we need the superficial marketing campaign? We are not the ones that rely on evengelists and indoctrination, as we rely on education.

Yes technically Christanity is also a negative assertion about the existence of other gods but that's just nitpicking. Atheism is simply a nonbelief in all gods, whether Christanity is a negative assertion about other gods is completely irrelevant to atheism.

Positive atheism isn't just about a marketing campaign, it's a whole philosophy which follows from the implications of atheism. The reason we've chosen to support it is because many people strive to be more than just being an atheist, they also try to bring up their standards. Many have found themselves attracted to the ideas found in positive atheism. That's why we decided it was worthy for including in the IIDB forums. Secular Activism was added later on actually when we realized that those two areas logically and emotionally go together. It's much more than just a superficial campaign, calling it that does it an injust deed because postive atheism have roots going back more than half a century in Gora's works as you can see in the websites provided through the links above.


Now, what is the difference between "positive" atheism and how I identify myself as an atheist? Am I not "forward-looking"?


There are differences. One can perfectly be an atheist and not agree with all of the ideas enspoused by positive atheism nor support it. I'd like to ask you what you mean by "forward-looking"? Is it the mere act of being an atheist "forward-looking"? The reason it's called "positive atheism" is because it moves beyond the state of being an atheist and asks what does it mean to be an atheist and conducting your life as such. Recall that being an atheist doesn't mean anything by it. There are many atheists having different philosophies, positive atheism is one of them and one we hope to increase awareness of it.

There is of course the double meaning of positive atheism which attempts to avoid the sterotypes and negatives of atheism. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. We sure know that atheism image could use a polish here in the US. The way things are going right now I feel that it'd be more of a liability and a mistake to feign an indifference to promoting and improving atheism's image.


We should be above inserting PR-friendly words to convey our position. Liberals seem to have a negative image in the media lately. Should I redefine my political philosophy as "Positive Liberalism"?


I balk at calling it "PR-friendly" because since positive atheism have been around for a long time. It wasn't just tossed out into the media at a spur of a moment but a carefully thought out term in correspondence with people who continue what Gora started. It's certainly a lot better than "Bright" and at least it retains atheism in the term.

How do you propose going around redefining your political philosophy "Positive Liberalism"? If your philosophy remains the same as the mainstream Liberal political philosophy then the redefinition is meaningless. Note that you refer to being a Liberal as supporting a particular philosophy. You cannot be a Liberal as you would be an atheism because of course being a Liberal presupposes that you support the position enspoused by liberalism. In contrast, being an atheist doesn't presuppose any particular philosophy or whatsoever, it's just a default position. Positive atheism is a philosophy, one that supporters think of as being progressive and promoting atheism. Here, the definition of positive atheism is certainly meaningful and constructive.

I think just "Secular Activism" would be fine for a forum name.

Perhaps, but we also wanted to generate discussions and an exchange of ideas over positive atheism and other freethought philosophies such as humanism. Plus, I neglected to mention that there was an overwhelming reponse of support and interest in having a positive atheism forum, hence the creation of the forum.

[chestercopperpot]

There are differences. One can perfectly be an atheist and not agree with all of the ideas enspoused by positive atheism nor support it. I'd like to ask you what you mean by "forward-looking"? Is it the mere act of being an atheist "forward-looking"? The reason it's called "positive atheism" is because it moves beyond the state of being an atheist and asks what does it mean to be an atheist and conducting your life as such. Recall that being an atheist doesn't mean anything by it. There are many atheists having different philosophies, positive atheism is one of them and one we hope to increase awareness of it.

You make it sound like plain "atheism" is a bad thing. And I see a bunch of "froo-froo" new age-type words that do not mean very much of anything. I certainly do not hide my atheism. When people ask me about it, I let them know why I am an atheist. I explain that the Bible is not historically or scientifically accurate, and how being a Christian by itself does not make you a good person, but doing what you feel is right, without trying to figure out what a magical sky-daddy would think what is right makes you a good person. And throw in injustices and cruelty in the Bible, blah, blah, blah, . . . you get the point. So how is this different than "positive atheism"? Again, I see nothing but a marketing reason for adding "positive." And FWIW, I have never read Gora (maybe I should?), but I am not in need of a philosophy change.

There is of course the double meaning of positive atheism which attempts to avoid the sterotypes and negatives of atheism. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. We sure know that atheism image could use a polish here in the US. The way things are going right now I feel that it'd be more of a liability and a mistake to feign an indifference to promoting and improving atheism's image.

But we don't believe that the Christian (and every other) God exists! No words are going to change that. And inserting "positive" can possibly put a positive spin, but the drawbacks of making plain atheism seem negative, with the insertion of that word, IMO outweigh any (IMO, negligible) benefits of inserting "positive."



I balk at calling it "PR-friendly" because since positive atheism have been around for a long time. It wasn't just tossed out into the media at a spur of a moment but a carefully thought out term in correspondence with people who continue what Gora started. It's certainly a lot better than "Bright" and at least it retains atheism in the term.

I don't see "positive" as being much better than "Bright."

Perhaps, but we also wanted to generate discussions and an exchange of ideas over positive atheism and other freethought philosophies such as humanism. Plus, I neglected to mention that there was an overwhelming reponse of support and interest in having a positive atheism forum, hence the creation of the forum.

That's fine, like I said, this is not a big deal to me, and I hope you don't take anything I say personally. If people support this, then that is fine, but I don't necessarily have to accept it (unless my EAC membership is riding on this) ;) , but I was wondering what everyone else thought of this, and I would like more people to express their opinion about this. And thanks Demosthenes, Toto, Writer@Large, and everyone else for your explanations.

[Gawdawful]

Apparently I wasn't entirely wrong in my "guess" about Positive Atheism. Here (http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/faq1111.htm#WHATISPOSATH) they say:
People seemed to think "Positive" meant we were doing something to confront the negative image that atheists endure from much of society. A few even recognized that several past and present atheistic leaders have inadvertently brought about part of this negative image through their spiteful and condescending attitude toward theists and theism, and thought "Positive Atheism" might be about countering this behavior.

We have, in the past, tried to steer such suggestions back to the topic of ethics and truthfulness: "We do this, but that's not 'Positive Atheism,'" we'd say. Later we decided to go ahead and let people be mistaken on this matter, humor them, if you will, and remain silent whenever someone construed "Positive Atheism" to mean anything other than what we'd said it meant.

We now admit that we're the ones who have been mistaken. Any philosophy called "Positive Atheism" needs to fit the intuitive meaning of its name! We make this admission in harmony with the above sentiments on doing what we say and saying what we do. So, we continue to work toward developing more dignified public expressions of the atheistic positions, but now we call this an element in the philosophy of Positive Atheism.

So, it is an element, an important element, in my opinion. But the first and foremost element is integrity. If that is upheld then eventually, in time, atheism cannot help but be seen in a more positive light.

I'm starting to learn something here.


Warren

[Demosthenes]

That's fine, like I said, this is not a big deal to me, and I hope you don't take anything I say personally. If people support this, then that is fine, but I don't necessarily have to accept it (unless my EAC membership is riding on this) ;) , but I was wondering what everyone else thought of this, and I would like more people to express their opinion about this. And thanks Demosthenes, Toto, Writer@Large, and everyone else for your explanations.

Lol, it's not personal, in fact I enjoyed your questions. I hope you'll find something of benefit in this forum! :)

[walt6]

I believe this is an important forum. I feel I have a need to get beyond a disbelief in the Gods. I want to explore what comes after that, and I think this forum presents a good place marker to do so.

I remember what the great philosopher, Tom Lehrer, once said:

"Life is like a sewer. What you get out of it depends upon
what you put into it"

[GaryP]

FWIW, Chester, I pretty much agree with you.

If expressing one's views and trying to stand up for yourself is "negative" than so be it.

But I also have no great complaint about the title of this forum. I can see the other POV also.

[Writer@Large]

If expressing one's views and trying to stand up for yourself is "negative" than so be it.We're not using the terms "positive" *or* "negative" in that way. At least, I'm not. By saying atheism is a negative assertion, we're not saying it's bad. It's a statement *against*, *in opposition* to a positive assertion, a statement *for* a concept. Whenever a theist asks an atheist to "prove there is no God," we almost always respond, "you're the one making the positive assertion; it's up to you to prove there is one." If they're the ones making a positive assertion, and we stand in opposition to that statement, we are, by definition, taking the *negative* assertion in the god-debate.

--W@L

[GaryP]

THAT sounds good to me!

[Straight Hate]

I never held the use of 'positive atheism' in terms of 'good' or 'bad', but rather as 'conscious atheism' in the sense that it's almost a rallying point for atheists to use to determine what exactly they can glean from the philosophy and how to apply that to society around them, irrespective of the absurdists' squawking.

I like this forum, and I look forward to what it'll turn into.

[southernhybrid]

I'm a long time fan of Cliff Walker's PA site and I like the name. I like the word positive and it reflects exactly how I feel about my naturalistic view of the world, and my life.

[EverLastingGodStopper]

Hi, just a lurker jumping in...

"Positive atheism" is ALSO used to indicate "strong atheism," or the assertive form of atheism which makes the claim that there is no God. The other stance is "weak atheism" or implicit atheism, the simple absence of belief in any gods.

The words "positive atheism" bear many meanings and may deserve their own forum. But then again I don't post here as often as I'd like to, so as a sort of newbie, I realize my 2 cents aren't worth as much as the regs and Mods opinions are.

-Janice

[usartist]

Whatever you decide, it's not going to make much difference to me, so do what you will, but I am wondering why a forum has the name "Positive Atheism (& Secular Activism)." I just don't like how that sounds. It sounds as if there is a "negative" atheism, or that atheism is not positive. I realize that we would like to do away with all the negative connotations given mostly by Christians to the word "atheism," but this makes it seem like there is something wrong, or not positive enough about plain old atheism. I feel that we have the more reasonable position, and the more we educate people, the better our position will seem, especially given the amount of scientists and generally well-educated people that are atheists or at least agnostic (I know, a generalization). I just don't feel like we need to insert a word for PR purposes. What does everyone else think? Mike
You don't think bashing theists is a negative behavior?

What all is there to educate about atheism? Most atheists will explain that "Atheism," is simply, the disbelief in supernatural deities. What more can be offered?... If there is any more to offer, some other atheist has a different opinion. It's a quagmire of confusion, not unlike the confusion of the differing denominations of theism under one god.

To claim that atheism offers a more reasonable position, does not hold to reason. Theist religions offer very cohesive and supportive community, atheists are lucky if they can organize a bake sale, car wash, or a once a year Saturday night dance.

Don't believe me, try it.

Until local atheist organizations can coordinate their congregation, atheists need to exercise the most creative public relations campaign as possible.

[Silent Acorns]

To claim that atheism offers a more reasonable position, does not hold to reason. Theist religions offer very cohesive and supportive community, atheists are lucky if they can organize a bake sale, car wash, or a once a year Saturday night dance.
Let me get this straight. Are you claiming that theism is a more resonable position than atheism because theists are better organized than atheists?

Would you argue that 70 years ago Nazism was more reasonable than Humanism because Nazis were better organized than Humanists?

Back to the OP, I think the new forum is great. My only reservation being that using "Positive Atheism" in the title might put too much focus on a single atheist philosophy. But I wholeheartedly agree that we need a "beyond mere lack of belief" forum to focus on the development of atheistic ideas.

[chestercopperpot]

You don't think bashing theists is a negative behavior?


We don't necessarily "bash" theists, we just don't believe in the existance of their god. And theists, especially Christians, bash atheists all the time.


What all is there to educate about atheism? Most atheists will explain that "Atheism," is simply, the disbelief in supernatural deities. What more can be offered?... If there is any more to offer, some other atheist has a different opinion. It's a quagmire of confusion, not unlike the confusion of the differing denominations of theism under one god.


Actually, atheism is entirely clear. We simply disbelieve in the existance of any god. Nothing more, nothing less. However, many philosophies and political views are included in that, and there is no was to encompass an official "philosophy" or political viewpoint for everyone who is atheist. Nor should we try (in my opinion).


To claim that atheism offers a more reasonable position, does not hold to reason.


This quote has nothing so do with this next quote.


Theist religions offer very cohesive and supportive community, atheists are lucky if they can organize a bake sale, car wash, or a once a year Saturday night dance.


If theism is more reasonable, where is the evidence for any god's existance?


Don't believe me, try it.


I've organized and participated in many bake sales, car washes, and dances. But without the guilt factor that comes with organized religions, turnout tends not to be high on a consistent basis.


Until local atheist organizations can coordinate their congregation, atheists need to exercise the most creative public relations campaign as possible.


Atheism is not a religion, it is merely a lack of religion, and we have no congregation. But I guess every public relations stunt takes a back seat to telling everyone that your god exists without any proof and to get into heaven with him, you must donate 10% of your income every week. ;)

But we don't do anything like that.

[Writer@Large]

you must donate 10% of your income every week. ;)

But we don't do anything like that.Not for lack of effort, though. My "Give Writer@Large 10% of Your Income Every Week" campaign just didn't get the response I hoped it would ... ;)

--W@L

[AspenMama]

Not for lack of effort, though. My "Give Writer@Large 10% of Your Income Every Week" campaign just didn't get the response I hoped it would ... ;)

--W@L

Perhaps it was a PR issue? My "Tithe 10% to the AspenMama Beer & Booze Fund" is quite successful.

[usartist]

I will agree,

Atheism is not a religion, just as Theism is not a religion.


The local atheist organizations are however, the religious denominations of atheism. And, they are asking for money, including this sites PayPal donation service.

Atheism is very under-developed, it has been successfully thwarted throughout history. Now, because of religious tolerance atheists cannot be persecuted. Atheism is the evolution of religion from theism. We are at the juncture in time where we can see the deterioration of theism and the construction of atheism.

Atheism suffers at this juncture, because there is a tremendous amount of diversity of opinion of a relatively small population that is of diverse proximities. It is difficult to organize, because of these factor, yet their are people who are putting forth an effort to organize these people.

You have to ask the question, Why?

The ultimate answer is, because they want to promote what they believe to be the better progression of Human Evolution. It will require organization and funding in order to do that. And, atheists need to understand that.

Atheist organizations will grow and divide, introduce doctrines all in an effort to serve their community. Not unlike the theist organizations. The principle doctrine is that there is no supernatural deity.

[usartist]

Let me get this straight. Are you claiming that theism is a more resonable position than atheism because theists are better organized than atheists?

Would you argue that 70 years ago Nazism was more reasonable than Humanism because Nazis were better organized than Humanists?

Possibly. I'll have to consider it further.

I will contend that Nazism was not as reasonable as Judeo-Christianity, because it was defeated, by a superior organization.

I do not believe Humanist organization could defeat Nazism...do you?

You need to understand atheism is very under-developed. It will require organization, and funding as some peolpe are attempting.

[clark]

I will agree,

Atheism is not a religion, just as Theism is not a religion.

The local atheist organizations are however, the religious denominations of atheism. And, they are asking for money, including this sites PayPal donation service.

As Public Relations Director of the Internet Infidels, I need to address this. The Internet Infidels have no paid staff, never have, but have a lot of operating expenses in keeping infidels.org/iidb.org/secweb.org running to serve the approximately quarter million unique visitors we have each month. We have a lot great donors, but several of us who have served on the II Board of Directors have donated a great deal of our own money to get it and keep it running. We have a lot of great donors from IIDB, but IIDB tends to operate at a loss (which is fine as we have income from general donors and some of our services to off set it).

The Humane Society, American Cancer Society, and every other nonprofit asks for donations. I don't think that makes them "religious denominations". Of all the local atheist organizations in the US, I'm aware of one that has any paid staff whatsoever (Humanists of Florida) and two that own any real estate whatsoever (Atlanta and Portland). These are a far cry from religious organizations.

Atheism is very under-developed, it has been successfully thwarted throughout history. Now, because of religious tolerance atheists cannot be persecuted. Atheism is the evolution of religion from theism. We are at the juncture in time where we can see the deterioration of theism and the construction of atheism.

Yes, but atheism is generally unorganized. Of the millions of atheists, agnostics, etc. in the US, maybe 50,000 are members of any atheistic organization, local or national.

THOUGHTfully Yours,
Clark

[usartist]

We don't necessarily "bash" theists, we just don't believe in the existance of their god. And theists, especially Christians, bash atheists all the time.And, you think you are better than them?Actually, atheism is entirely clear. We simply disbelieve in the existance of any god. Nothing more, nothing less. However, many philosophies and political views are included in that, and there is no was to encompass an official "philosophy" or political viewpoint for everyone who is atheist. Nor should we try (in my opinion).What about Truth, Reason, and Integrity. Those are not necissarily principles for atheists to believe in?...You are right all the philosophies are not going to be included in all the local atheist organizations. Those organizations will eventually have to decide what philosophy they want to promote. The organization with the strongest doctrines of philosophy will succeed and survive.

If theism is more reasonable, where is the evidence for any god's existance?I will contend the organizational ability of the belief in "God,' is evidence of existence. So, long as people believe it, and are willing to defend it, that is fairly reasonable. You see I believe "God' is just the personification of Integrity.

I've organized and participated in many bake sales, car washes, and dances. But without the guilt factor that comes with organized religions, turnout tends not to be high on a consistent basis.Why would you feel guilty about participating in a bake sale?

Atheism is not a religion, it is merely a lack of religion, and we have no congregation. But I guess every public relations stunt takes a back seat to telling everyone that your god exists without any proof and to get into heaven with him, you must donate 10% of your income every week. ;)
But we don't do anything like that.Eventually atheist organizations will require a donation. Oh, I'm sorry, they already do. Check it out:
nyc-atheists.org (http://www.nyc-atheists.org)
Philadelphia Freethought (http://www.fsgp.org)

And, what's this heirarchy organizing all about with American Atheists? (http://www.atheists.org/states/)

It's happening, you just do not recognize it because you harbour resentment towards organized theist religions.

[usartist]

The Humane Society, American Cancer Society, and every other nonprofit asks for donations. I don't think that makes them "religious denominations". Of all the local atheist organizations in the US, I'm aware of one that has any paid staff whatsoever (Humanists of Florida) and two that own any real estate whatsoever (Atlanta and Portland). These are a far cry from religious organizations.

Good arguement,

They very well may be religions. I realize the popular definition of "Religion (http://www.onelook.com/?w=religion&ls=a)" is very well accepted throughout the atheist community, and I have noticed how "religion" is used quite often in atheist discussion in reference to theism (http://www.onelook.com/?w=theism&ls=a). I am not sure if that is correct. I believe atheists in general harbor a considerable amount of resentment towards organized theist religions, that they fail to recognize the root etymology (http://www.onelook.com/?w=etymology&ls=a) of the word "Religion."

And, that is going to require atheists to research the word at their local libirary. It can be found in the big Oxford Dictionary, the one with a book for each letter of the alphabet. In it can be found that "religion" from some Latin word meant "To bind." Etymologists do not give a reason for the change in definition around the 13th Century to "Belief in deity."

But, it is obvious to me. The Christian Church commandeered an intellectual occupation of the word to strengthen congregation adherence. The intellectual occupation has worked very well by inadvertantly distracting atheists from organizing.

Take notice of the more archaic definitions of "religion":
Merriam - Webster (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=religion) archaic : scrupulous conformity
http://www.bartleby.com (http://www.bartleby.com/61/6/R0140600.html) A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion) A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion
And what has Robert (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/secularism.html) said printed here on the Secular Web Libirary, "Secularism is the religion of humanity." Say what you will, but he did use the "R"-word.

I prefer what I am finding in the wikipedia.org Encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion) A religion is defined as the social expression of attitudes, beliefs, and practices related to the supernatural or the sacred. Religion also functions in many human communities as a means by which the origin of the world around them, and such mysteries as life, death, and their meaning are explained. However, what actually constitutes a religion is subject to much dispute in the fields of theology, sociology, anthropology, and among ordinary people.

Wouldn't you agree that local atheist organizations are attempting to serve the functions in many human communities as a means by which the origin of the world around them, and such mysteries as life, death, and their meaning are explained?

Keep in mind that the primary tenet of atheism is just the opposite of the primary tenet of theism.

Another aspect of consideration is that internet search engines all categoraze atheism in "Religion," as well as Budhism.

And when someone asks you what your religion is?...Is it not easier just to claim to be an atheist?

[Silent Acorns]

I will contend that Nazism was not as reasonable as Judeo-Christianity, because it was defeated, by a superior organization.
At risk of going off topic, Nazism could be easily qualify as a subset of Judeo-Christianity. Even if it's not, the idea that Nazism was defeated by organized Judeo-Christianity is bizarre, as far as I'm concerned.
I do not believe Humanist organization could defeat Nazism...do you?
Actually, I do. At a minium, I would argue that Humanism had at least as much to do with the defeat of Nazism as Judeo-Christianity, and probably a lot more.
You need to understand atheism is very under-developed. It will require organization, and funding as some peolpe are attempting.
Believe me, I know that we are currently poorly organized. However, I fail to see how "degree of organization" is an appropriate measure of how reasonable a given philosophy is.

[usartist]

At risk of going off topic, Nazism could be easily qualify as a subset of Judeo-Christianity. Even if it's not, the idea that Nazism was defeated by organized Judeo-Christianity is bizarre, as far as I'm concerned. I may be simplistic in my statement there that Judeo-Christianity defeated Nazism, but what religious grouping would you consider the predominated the Allied forces?...and, the reason they fought was because they considered Nazism to be immoral.

Actually, I do. At a minium, I would argue that Humanism had at least as much to do with the defeat of Nazism as Judeo-Christianity, and probably a lot more.Well, Humanism took quite a hit after the war if that is true, since Christian Churches flourished for a while. And, from what I understand atheists GI's kept their ideaology to themselfs for fear of persecution. It wasn't until Vietnam when atheists were more acceptable. And as you know the adage, "There are no atheists in foxholes," continues into the current war.

Believe me, I know that we are currently poorly organized. However, I fail to see how "degree of organization" is an appropriate measure of how reasonable a given philosophy is.
For the most part the population is not as smart as you. They do not have the capabilities to research and understand the world as well as you, so it is relatively more to associate with the larger population.

This is demonstrated in this thread, My son is being indoctrinated into Christianity (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=65946)

Basically the child wishes to be with a community of people who have activities. The mother of the child is unable to offer an atheist alternative. Eventually local atheist organization will be able to offer activities, such as this Brights (http://www.brightrights.org/brightrights/), and Quest (http://www.camp-quest.com/) organizations. It's happening, I just think it is time for atheists to shed their irrational resentment towards "religion," when it is organized theist religion that they have a genuine exception to.

[clark]

Eventually atheist organizations will require a donation. Oh, I'm sorry, they already do. Check it out:
nyc-atheists.org (http://www.nyc-atheists.org)
Philadelphia Freethought (http://www.fsgp.org)

And, what's this heirarchy organizing all about with American Atheists? (http://www.atheists.org/states/)


I don't think any atheist organizations require donations. Most have membership dues, like many nonprofits (Brotherhood of Elks, Stamp Collectors Society, ACLU, etc.). I am president of a local atheist organization (http://www.halvason.org) and, while we have dues, people can still attend our functions if they're not officially members. We even send our newsletter, electronically, to many people who, for whatever reason, never officially joined the organization.

The "hierarchy" of atheistic organizations is very loose, and most local atheistic organization are very autonomous. To compare it with the rigid hierarchy of many religions is a stretch.

THOUGHTfully Yours,
Clark

[clark]

...Wouldn't you agree that local atheist organizations are attempting to serve the functions in many human communities as a means by which the origin of the world around them, and such mysteries as life, death, and their meaning are explained?

Not really. I've been involved with local freethought groups for many years, and they're mainly either support networks for other like-minded individuals or activist groups fighting for First Amendment issues. They are more for individuals finding their own explanations, rather than for proscribing some dogma. At most, the groups will have professors, scientists, philosophers, etc. occasionally lecture to the groups on topics relating to the above issues.

Keep in mind that the primary tenet of atheism is just the opposite of the primary tenet of theism.

Another aspect of consideration is that internet search engines all categoraze atheism in "Religion," as well as Budhism.

This, to me, proves the point that atheism (or theism for that matter) is not a religion. Atheist can be part of a religion, like some sects of Buddhism, in theism is a part of Christianity, Islam, etc.

And when someone asks you what your religion is?...Is it not easier just to claim to be an atheist?

No. I have no religion, especially in the common usage of the word. I am in quote books and quote lists for my quote, "If atheism is a religion, then health is a disease." In modern vernacular, atheism is usually the absence of religious beliefs, primarily the absence of theism. "Atheism" is simply a position on the existence of god, nothing more, nothing less. Even if you want to use religion to mean "lifestance" or "personal philosophy", atheism is not nearly enough to constitute a religion.

When asked my religion, I always reply I have none and sometimes quote Paine, "to do good is my religion".

THOUGHTfully Yours,
Clark

[usartist]

Clark,

Your organization is in its initial germination. Chances are the attendence is sporatic. Those who do regularly attend are your devout (http://www.onelook.com/?w=devout&ls=a) followers. Make no mistake about it, and you are their leader. You are sending information to those people, because you would like for them to attend the meetings, and contribute to the community you are attempting to organize.

If that is not your goal, your organization is going to fail. That's just the simple reality. If no one attends the show, it would be a fallacy to claim it a success!

When your organization appeals and garners a larger attendence, eventually you will desire to meet in a larger venue to accommodate everyone. That is going to require a larger finacial revenue budget. How are you going to do that if you do not require dononation? I realize this is probably difficult to imagine, because attendence is probably sporatic; as I have noticed in NYC and Philadelphia. Two cities that I thought would have a stronger community then what I found.

Eventually it is going to happen, attendence will pick up. I just do not foresee local atheists organizations dissolving themselves, because the community has outgrown the meeting facilities.

The problem is, we cannot figure out how to get atheists to attend the meetings, when they sublimitally recognize they are forming a religion when they harbor such resentment towards organized religion.

And, that is why atheist organizations have to be careful as to how they solicite funds.

[usartist]

That is correct, Clark, atheism is not a religion, just as theism is not a religion.

It is the local atheist organizations that are forming the denominations of Atheism. The leaders of the organizations are reluctant to establish doctrines, because they cannot get enough people to attend the meetings with a very open doctrine.

You don't think a support network is similar to the connotations of organized religion?... Community?... Activities?... Come on Clark be honest with yourself, what is the purpose of your atheist organization?

When asked my religion, I always reply I have none and sometimes quote Paine, "to do good is my religion".

I certainly agree, and you progress that by organizing a community of people with similar views on what life is all about. And the most important concept is that there is no supernatural deity.

[usartist]

Religion is not the belief and worship of the supernatural.

Religion is the behavioral training program that perpetuates human belief systems such as theism and atheism.

The definition of "Religion" was commandeered by the early Christian Church to strengthen congregation.

Understand that at one time the natural world was very misunderstood, and the incarnation of a supernatural was the best solution. reluctantly, and to the absolute resentment of atheists, the belief in the supernatural has held, because of the tremendous amount of community organization.

Atheist are just starting to get themselves organized. Atheism has been successfully thwarted throughout history, because of theocracy.

Democracy is the downfall of theism, because it does not promote a deity or a divine ruler. Democracy promotes the individual.

You recognize this, because you see that theism is deteriorating in the form of moral violations such as pornography, promisquity, gambling, and other behaviors. And, because theist have no choise, but to tolerate atheism, and atheists are beginning to congregate community.

Atheism is the religious evolution from theism.

[SEF]

the belief in the supernatural has held, because of the tremendous amount of community organization.No, it is because many humans are stupid, ignorant and lazy. It takes brains, education and effort to work out or even follow worthwhile things such as science. To repeat a fairy story without proper comprehension merely requires a parrot. It isn't that much harder to make up the fairy story either - hence the large number of different religions and beliefs.

Atheism is the religious evolution from theism.That's just unsupported nonsensical jargon like your other assertions preceding it. Atheism didn't evolve from theism though some individuals may have developed away from theism into atheism as they grew up mentally. It certainly isn't a religious evolution - atheism would have come first before humans made up gods. So it could be regarded as the true fundamentalism. To get back to the definitions though: religion is the trappings of organisation thrown over any form of theism to try and make a group of people look as though they have the same set of beliefs, ie constructing an effective army. Whenever they are questioned individually though it is revealed that they don't believe or "understand" the same things at all. They try not to admit this though because they like belonging to a group. Groups give cowardly bullies and mediocre losers power which they would not otherwise have. The leader especially benefits, both financially and in influence/control.

Of course it is possible to build the equivalent of a religion without theistic beliefs - eg just about every secret society or club that ever was or tribal initiation ceremony into adulthood. Elite military units do this too. However, trying to make all atheists wear one colour or outfit and use a secret handshake or password isn't going to work because if they are not merely atheist through never having heard or thought of a god they will tend to be far too intelligent and thoughtful individuals to fall consistently for such a dishonest pretence of conformity (though some will some of the time). There isn't anything to really unite atheists precisely because they don't believe in the same thing(s) - just try uniting all creeds of christianity despite them claiming to believe in the same god! Instead atheists are more likely to be aware that they are responsible for deciding what is right and wrong and that they may disagree with other atheists on where dividing lines might be drawn on specific issues. About the closest thing to commonality they might have is a high regard for education, personal integrity and the honest seeking of truth - ie the very things deliberately suppressed by organised religion because they threaten its power base.

If you are a theist you probably don't believe that last assertion of mine because it seems offensive to call many theists ignorant, lying bigots. But examine the texts and the behaviour they inspire. The obvious choice has to be the Bible as one of the worst examples of its kind:

- It begins by god telling humans they mustn't find stuff out and being annoyed when they do. The modern christians emulate this by avoiding many areas of education on spurious religious grounds.

- Then the Bible says to honour certain people and not bear false witness against them but it fails to mention that these people have to deserve respect first and it explicitly allows the exploitation of and lying to outsiders. The modern christians emulate this by deliberately misrepresenting what other people have said - showing no respect for them and lying about them, eg the out of context quotes and the strawman version of evolution. Where the intention isn't deliberately dishonest it may instead be assisted by the poor education mentioned previously and the prejudice that the person who told them the falsehood (which they are then merely repeating without thought or question) must be right because they belong to the same cult.

- The Bible then explicitly says that one must not test god (for the very obvious reason that he fails to stand up to scrutiny every time!). The modern theists emulate this by only pretending to get qualifications in order to make false appeals to their own authority. When they do pass genuine exams they do so believing they are lying on the papers just to get the result they want. Outside academia they manipulate and fabricate evidence, including re-interpreting the Bible as necessary, to make it look like it supports the lie they want to believe anyway. This shows clear prejudice in trying to justify preconceived conclusions and a lack of personal integrity in the manner of doing so. Generally such fabrication is not done very well because of the previously mentioned poor education, eg not understanding that the possible sources of error in radiometric dating would actually make the Earth even older.

Note that this doesn't apply to all theists. It is possible for a theist to be intelligent, well-educated and honest. However, I contend that this is more likely to be despite their religion and beliefs rather than because of them. Having a religion or theistic belief does not genuinely seem to make people more moral as many claim for themselves. The fundamentalist believers of each religion seem to be about the worst examples of their type - going against even the strictures of their own religion in trying to get what they want and wipe out all unbelievers. A good way of judging the worth of any religion is how much it does to condemn the actions of its own extremists. Christian churches are rather slow to condemn paedophile priests and have actively encouraged their side of terrorists. Muslim leaders can be rather slow to condemn their terrorists too and have encouraged some. That then says rather a lot about the lack of integrity of the whole religion in each case.

...

Hmm. That ended up being quite a long rant because of the necessity to present evidence in contrast to the lack of any from usartist. Perhaps I should go back to staying away from this forum.

[usartist]

No, it is because many humans are stupid, ignorant and lazy. It takes brains, education and effort to work out or even follow worthwhile things such as science. To repeat a fairy story without proper comprehension merely requires a parrot. It isn't that much harder to make up the fairy story either - hence the large number of different religions and beliefs.
Your resentment towards theists is clouding your intelligence. As much as I would like to agree with you, the portion of the college educated attending religious services regularly:

2001 Harvard University Study (http://post.economics.harvard.edu/hier/2001papers/HIER1913.pdf)

50% of college graduates attend more than "Several times a year."
36% of high school drop-outs attend more than "several times a year."

I like to agree with your statement, and I think it supports my statement, because the less intelligent and lazy would seem to be more likely to seek community. Notice how your assertion that atheists are of superior intelligence, tends to correlate to the fact that atheists avoid atheist organizational groups.

This is demonstrated in this thread, My son is being indoctrinated into Christianity (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=65946)

Basically the child wishes to be with a community of people who have activities. The mother of the child is unable to offer an atheist alternative. Eventually local atheist organization will be able to offer activities, such as this Brights, and Quest organizations. It's happening, I just think it is time for atheists to shed their irrational resentment towards "religion," when it is organized theist religion that they have a genuine exception to.

[usartist]

That's just unsupported nonsensical jargon like your other assertions preceding it. Atheism didn't evolve from theism though some individuals may have developed away from theism into atheism as they grew up mentally. It certainly isn't a religious evolution - atheism would have come first before humans made up gods. So it could be regarded as the true fundamentalism.

I understand where you are coming from. I agree with what you are asserting here, and that is theism evolved from "atheism."

What you are failing to recognize is your extremely emotionally charged reverance to what you believe...You are not going to change your mind.

There is an evolution occurring, make no mistake about it. We are at a juncture in history where we can see the disassembly of theism and the construction of atheism, or if you prefer, the reconstruction of atheism.

Of course it is possible to build the equivalent of a religion without theistic beliefs - eg just about every secret society or club that ever was or tribal initiation ceremony into adulthood. Elite military units do this too. However, trying to make all atheists wear one colour or outfit and use a secret handshake or password isn't going to work because if they are not merely atheist through never having heard or thought of a god they will tend to be far too intelligent and thoughtful individuals to fall consistently for such a dishonest pretence of conformity (though some will some of the time). There isn't anything to really unite atheists precisely because they don't believe in the same thing(s) You are delving into fantasyland here, don't get paranoid. Atheist organizations are going to be very particular as to the activities they organize. The ultimate doctrine to be perpetuated is that there is no supernatural or deity. If that doctrine is not adhered to people will again resort to supernatural beliefs.

Why do you think theism happened in the first place?

About the closest thing to commonality they might have is a high regard for education, personal integrity and the honest seeking of truth - ie the very things deliberately suppressed by organised religion because they threaten its power base.

Outstanding, the only concept you left out was "Reason," hopefully that was implied with the education statement. Truth, Reason, Integrity, will probably make up the tenets of morality.

If you are a theist you probably don't believe that last assertion of mine because it seems offensive to call many theists ignorant, lying bigots. But examine the texts and the behaviour they inspire. The obvious choice has to be the Bible as one of the worst examples of its kind. Why would you think I am a theist?

Get off the Bible thumping kick! What is the obsession?...Do you feel better,now?


Note that this doesn't apply to all theists. It is possible for a theist to be intelligent, well-educated and honest. However, I contend that this is more likely to be despite their religion and beliefs rather than because of them. Having a religion or theistic belief does not genuinely seem to make people more moral as many claim for themselves. Make up your mind, are theist all stupid or not?

Hmm. That ended up being quite a long rant because of the necessity to present evidence in contrast to the lack of any from usartist. Perhaps I should go back to staying away from this forum.
Yea, you got very upset...Look at all you wrote from the Bible!!!...You would make a preacher man very proud.

Why do you think you got so upset?...are you sure you are without religion?

Religion is not the belief in god. Theism is the belief in god.

Religion is a behavioral training program that perpetuates belief systems and disbelief systems. Religion also functions in many human communities as a means by which the origin of the world around them, and such mysteries as life, death, and their meaning are explained (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion).

By the way, what evidence had you presented?...You have no facts, just beliefs.

[SEF]

Your resentment towards theists is clouding your intelligence.No, and it isn't about theists but about what particular theists do. Contrary to their claims, their theism does not seem to do anything to give them better morals or prevent them committing crimes but actually encourages them to be nastier in some situations. You don't have anything to counter the actual arguments so you resort to an ad hominem attack on my intelligence.

... the portion of the college educated attending religious services regularlyThere you are getting confused between people being able to memorise stuff at college and people who are honest and intelligent enough to question every aspect of their lives, including their religion. There's a big difference between the two types of learning. It is actually something which people could benefit from being taught at lower schools because it helps to know which strategy best suits someone. Most people are naturally parrots and only think when they have to. A few are stronger reasoners than they are memorisers and will learn better from experimenting and deducing quickly. However, the school system all the way up to college level is set up to favour the majority - the parrots.

Incidentally, you are also supporting my view that they like being part of a club because they lack true (emotional) independence. Many theists are too scared to not go to church because of the fairy story. Some may simply lack anything better to do at all. To people lacking self-worth and the drive to do anything constructive about really improving themselves, a ready-made gang which claims to make you superior (despite lack of evidence for this) just by belonging without having to do much is very literally a godsend. Since this wanting to belong is fairly normal in humans, it is hardly surprising that some atheists might want to have their own clubs too. They have obviously failed to notice though that they could have real hobbies and interests which are irrelevant to whether or not they are atheistic: eg sports, chess, orchestra etc. The main problem they will face in getting a life for themselves is interference from the really offensive variety of theists who insist on trying to take over any such group. They pretend religion has to come into it, proselytise at anyone they can get their claws into at a weak moment (some people on this site have already reported their personal anecdotes of that!) and ostracise those who disagree and try to stand up to them. From Jim's and other people's reports, AA is very like that too.

I like to agree with your statement, and I think it supports my statement, because the less intelligent and lazy would seem to be more likely to seek community. Notice how your assertion that atheists are of superior intelligence, tends to correlate to the fact that atheists avoid atheist organizational groups.Almost but not quite. Firstly, given the different causes of atheism, not all atheists have to be super-intelligent. Secondly it is the lack of independence, emotional and of thought, which leads people to want groups and the laziness factor which leads them to want easy groups rather than ones they have to really work at. While intelligence may mean someone is more independent and less lazy, there is no particular guarantee of a nice simple correlation!

I don't think atheists should be encouraged to think they need atheist congregations. Instead they should each be trying to ensure that the real activity-based clubs they might actually want to join don't insist on or breed theists.

I just think it is time for atheists to shed their irrational resentment towards "religion," when it is organized theist religion that they have a genuine exception to.Here we clearly disagree on the definition, since religion is the organised face of theism. The real theism is those private, internal beliefs of the individual which need not be flaunted at everyone and differ more wildly among members of the same congregation than they would be willing to admit if it even occurred to them to think about it.

[SEF]

Hey, no fair, you got to reply again after I'd loaded the page! Humph! ;)

The ultimate doctrine to be perpetuated is that there is no supernatural or deity. If that doctrine is not adhered to people will again resort to supernatural beliefs.Why should atheists have to have organisations. Why should there be a doctrine of wiping out beliefs. Ultimately it might be nice but at the moment most humans still need the irrational comfort blanket. The important thing to ensure is that they not be allowed to corrupt everyone else. The issue of theism/atheism should be kept out of everything important rather than replacing theism with atheism. It really doesn't matter what someone else privately believes as long as they don't let it interfere with their ability to do their job or anyone else's. So there are theistic scientists who are quite capable of doing the job without trailing their comfort blanket all over the place. They simply pack it away when necessary and try not to notice that it is the one part of their lives/minds which really needs a good wash or throwing out.

Make up your mind, are theist all stupid or not?I'm not being inconsistent. You just aren't comprehending. It's not about stupidity per se but the honesty to apply one's existing intelligence and critical thought to everything. Some theists are too insecure and/or dishonest to do that. Some people are too stupid to do that and they may well be theists if they happened to have come across some brand of theism which sucked them in. Some people are too ignorant to do it and again what they are will be determined by their environment.

Religion is not the belief in god. Theism is the belief in god.

Religion is a behavioral training program that perpetuates belief systems and disbelief systems. Religion also functions in many human communities as a means by which the origin of the world around them, and such mysteries as life, death, and their meaning are explained (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion).The first bit is much closer and not what you seemed to be saying before but rather what I was saying. The latter bit puts religion back as being the belief in god again though and completely ignores the fact that goddidit doesn't really explain anything at all, ie it fails to match up to further observation and testing and makes no useful predictions.

By the way, what evidence had you presented?...You have no facts, just beliefs.I assumed everyone had a basic knowledge of history and that the things I mentioned were capable of being looked up. Unfortunately humans tend to be ignorant and lazy though - as I already mentioned once or twice... (ie it was partly a deliberate test even when I posted it and this is now the explanation for the hard of thinking)

[SEF]

Oops - missed a bit:

Why would you think I am a theist?It's a limitation of English as commonly used - "you" for the general person instead of "one" (which seems pretentious these days) and other more convoluted constructions. I was trying to head off the obvious objection to the previous statements but you (yes I really mean you this time) made the fairly natural mistake of taking it personally. Try this version instead:

"If anyone reading this is a theist then you probably don't believe that last assertion of mine..."

NB I picked the Bible because this is an American site and (probably as a consequence of that) most of the vocal fundamentalists I've seen on it are christian. Also many people who aren't christian have at least a vague idea of the contents of the bible, have access to a vesion of it or have even read the whole thing. If there are many muslims, jews, chinese, ancient egyptians, greeks or romans around here then I haven't come across them yet but I can dig out their myths and contrast them with their historically recorded behaviour and modern views if they want.

[usartist]

Why should atheists have to have organisations? Why should there be a doctrine of wiping out beliefs?I think you answer those questions with your following statements. Ultimately it might be nice but at the moment most humans still need the irrational comfort blanket. The important thing to ensure is that they not be allowed to corrupt everyone else.As much as the average theist seeks comfort in a non-exist supernatural, they seek more comfort in the security of the community of fellowship. If atheist could offer the security of a stable community less people would seek refuge in the comfort of an "Irrational security blanket." The only way to prevent the theists' ability to corrupt others is to form atheists organization.
The issue of theism/atheism should be kept out of everything important rather than replacing theism with atheism. It really doesn't matter what someone else privately believes as long as they don't let it interfere with their ability to do their job or anyone else's.That's not how it works. Religion is a 24/7 practice. Atheists have less dificulty with this, because they do not have to believe in something they are not sure. I think it is extremely important that theists not be allowed to work in areas dealing with genetic engineering and other like areas, because they inherently bring a hypocrisy into the mindset, because they are not allowed to play "God." Theists however are corrupt about this aspect of religion. Ask any clergyman and he will tell you, religion is to enter every aspect of your life that way the morality is insured with the practitioners spouse, offspring, friends, job.

[SEF]

Ask any clergyman and he will tell you, religion is to enter every aspect of your life that way the morality is insured with the practitioners spouse, offspring, friends, job.There you prove I was right to select the Bible and christians in particular as an example. The jews don't actually want more jews by conversion though they do want to keep the ones they have by birth. The ancient egyptians didn't seem to be that bothered about neighbouring cultures but the priests were very defensive of their own local power (hence the obliteration of the changes AkhenAten and Nefertiti introduced). The chinese also didn't seem to go round converting other people or letting religion interfere with commerce (though it did affect their house building style!).

I don't think that positive atheism has to be about wiping out all theists, eg by conversion or murder - although simply waiting for existing ones to die and making it harder for them to indoctrinate more people by the offensive practices of missionary work and witnessing would certainly be an ideal! If the invasive part of various christian religions can be discouraged or outlawed then there really should be no need for specifically atheist organisations, clubs and activities. One problem with many varieties of the islamic religion which can't be quite so simply countered/ignored is that they want to prevent females from being properly educated or having any sort of power. However, that's pretty much the jewish and christian position really too, though many of them have learned to hide it better. Females haven't exactly had the vote for long. Former slaves have had it for longer!

I'm probably making an assumption that atheism would include the idea of approximate male/female equality (not the false PC kind) simply because of the lack of any non-religious reason to deny such general equality. However, going with that assumption, I would expect any positive atheism organisation to be actively promoting things like equality of rights to employment and education (subject to fitness and qualification of course!). That's going to take a lot more effort and serious organisation anywhere which doesn't have at least the basics or pay lip-service to those ideals. Someone mentioned on another thread that they were not getting to go on fun missionary trips as an atheist. I'm not sure the sort of missions atheists potentially ought to be running would be fun or safe in the way that many christian ones now are after bullying the locals into submission in many places.